Why I Do *Not* Support Brainquake (& Think Sloppy Argumentation is Dangerous)

A False dilemma, *Post hoc ergo propter hoc,* Straw Man & The Red Herring: The Lost Logic- it sounds like the makings of a new Dan Brown novel, but it isn't...it's Brainquake.

Red Herring

I am a feminist and have an IQ larger than my cup size. I am more than happy to flaunt both in mixed company. But it is #Brainquake I find offensive and degrading to women, not #Boobquake. I find it offensive to our bodies and our minds- to good thinking and sexuality. And you can etch that notch right alongside the others on the goalpost of my resume. But be careful, goalposts seem to be moving around a lot in this debate.

In addition to recent backpedaling, there is a lot of talk about visibility and gazing in Brainquake's unfortunate backlash against the protest/social media experiment created by Purdue University student, Jen McCreight, known as Boobquake. I cannot make an argument here about what Negar Mottahedeh and Golbarg Bashi, founders of Brainquake, are thinking, because that is not in the realm of what is reasonably arguable. Appealing to the thought processes and motives of Brainquake's creators would amount to a logical fallacy- a Red Herring, a slight of hand changing of the subject from the evidence of their actual assertions. It would be intellectually dishonest and make this argument about everything other than what it is actually about. So, rather than fallaciously averting our gaze from the argument they have bared before our eyes, we will gaze directly upon the visible, knowable, (refutable or supportable) chain of assertions that made up Brainquake's genesis. Rather fitting, since McCreight created Boobquake to test an assertion using evidence.

So what were Brainquake's original assertions? According to an announcement on Brainquake co-founder Negar Mottahedeh's blog titled "#Brainquake: Why I won't be joining Boobquake" and a statement posted on the Brainquake Facebook Event, here they are, in chronological order:

1) "[Sedighi] of course joined fellow fundamentalist religious preachers such as Pat Robertson who have made similar claims about marginalized groups, women, the poor, third world nations, etc being responsible for natural disasters."

2) "The Sedighi comment was no news to Iranian women,"

3) "nor was it a funny joke."

4) "For over 3 decades the Islamic Republic has used and abused women's bodies and women's socio-economic and political rights in shaping and defining its repressive policies."

5) "Iranian women have fought back in various ways, one of which has been to dress “subvervily” but as it is evident in the Green Movement (the name the Iranian opposition is known by) , it is not their “beauty” or bodies that they have utilized in fighting against a brutal theocracy but their brains, their creativity, art, writings etc."

6) "Golbarg Bashi and I are saddened that Jen McCreight (a blogger at Blag Hag), and the so-called feminist response has been “showing off some cleavage for ‘Boobquake’ this Monday."

7) "This campaign has aroused the evidently insatiable enthusiasm of the web community, male supporters in particular who can’t wait to see “regular” girls and women, many their direct friends to “showing off their tits”."

8) "Her own words suggest a lighthearted mockery, a statement on women's rights and a desire to scientifically test Sadeqi's claims. "

9) "Everyday women and young girls are forced to “show off cleavage” and more in order simply to be heard, to be seen, or to advance professionally."

10) "The web is already filled with images of naked women; the porn industry thrives online and many young girls are already vulnerable to predatory abuse."

11) "Violence against women and girls has consequences for the sexualisation of women and girls. The extent of their sexualization is evident in the hundereds of replies that pour into the “Boobquake” Facebook page where women write, apologetically: "I don’t have boobs, not fair" or "Hey, I only have a C cup… ” and “what about those of us who no longer have a cleavage? they sag too low.”

12) "World-wide, the sexualisation of women and younger girls, as young as pre-schoolers is a genuine problem and as mothers, feminists, and young women ourselves we believe that it is time to move away from this “bare it all” mentality."

13) "Let’s create a “Brainquake” and show off our resumes, CVs, honors, prizes, accomplishments (photo evidence), because the Hojatoleslam and the Islamic Republic of Iran are afraid of women’s abilities to push for change, to thrive despite gender apartheid (Did you know that over 64% of students studying at universities in Iran are women?) Let’s honor their accomplishments by showing off our abilities, our creativity, our ingenuity, and our smarts on our blogs, on Wikipedia, on Twitter, on Youtube, on Flickr and all over Facebook. And remember to use hashtag #brainquake on Twitter."

Mottahedeh clearly restates in a subsequent blog post that Brainquake was not a protest of Sedighi's statements, but of Boobquake, itself. A protest of a protest. She uses the phrase, "direct response," and elsewhere "celebration." But the discourse and original assertions were clear, as was the official designation of the Event Type on Facebook: "Cause-Protest."

Red Herring, Sian Storey

What and who is she protesting?

According to her blog post, "#Brainquake and Boobquake: Reflections on two social media campaigns", Mottahedeh writes:

"I think it is clear that the Brainquake campaign on Facebook and #Brainquake on Twitter was a response to the Boobquake campaign which was started by Jen McCreight. In other words, in my thinking anyway, there have been plenty of pronouncements of "the Sedighi variety" on women and women's bodies to which we could have responded with any number of campaigns, but we haven't and we didn't."

No, they didn't. McCreight did.

Mottahedeh goes on:

"Brainquake was a direct response to Boobquake and an effort to celebrate the lives and achievements of women in Iran and elsewhere. In my thinking, again, and I cannot speak on behalf of Golbarg, there is a lethal cultural context which harbors a blatant orientalism (a notion of backwardness vs. progress) in which Boobquake was born. Combine this with misunderstandings of the Iranian women's movement and Iranian feminism & its historical, social, political and cultural contexts and mix in boobs and what you have is --wow-- explosive." [emphasis mine.]

So, in this paragraph, Mottahedeh locates the purpose of her protest in a rejection of Orientalism. Whose Orientalism, one wonders? She does not directly site that Orientalism within McCreight's immodest proposal. In fact, it's location is left ambiguous, as is the location, ownership, and accountability for the "misunderstandings of the Iranian women's movement and Iranian feminism & its historical, social, political and cultural contexts" that are her cause for protest. Is it McCreight she accuses of being an Orientalist? Is it the concept of testing Sedighi's assertion? Where is the Orientalism? Who is the intended target of Brainquake's protest message? Whose "misunderstanding of Iranian feminism" and whose "Orientalism" is at stake....and, where can it be found?

To me, this is the central question. And one that Brainquake has failed to answer.

It is without a doubt that Orientalism poisons the cognitive environment of the vast majority of discourse in North America surrounding anything to do with Iran, particularly around issues of gender. It is without a doubt that that history and context is invisible and misunderstood by the majority of people who have heard of the hashtags #Boobquake and #Brainquake on Twitter. It is without a doubt that the historical deployment of the soteriological, scopophiliac discourses of Western feminism that construct Iranian women as veiled, oppressed sisters in need of rescue and enlightenment by the West are not evaluated by the general consumer of North American social media in terms of their patriarchal, imperialist contexts. It is without a doubt that many spectators to Boobquake were unaware that Iranian feminism has it's own roots and it's own wings.

However- Brainquake isn't a protest of Orientalism-out-there-in-the-world, generically- a protest of the "lethal cultural context" Mottahedeh cites. No, it is a protest of Jen McCreight's Boobquake. It is a protest of women choosing to dress immodestly, however they define that word, to mock and test the assertion of the Earthquake-phobic Hojatoleslam. And that is where things fall apart ominously. Like two unrelated images shown together, one after the other in a film montage, these two ideas become forever linked in Mottahedeh's argument by association: Boobquake. Orientalist. A one-two discursive punch with no logical argumentation. Or connection. And it is at this point in the plotline of Brainquake that an almost invisible narrative device is introduced: A Straw Man Argument mischaracterizing both the text and context of Boobquake.

The beauty and wonder of a straw man argument (and logical fallacy, for all you Brainquakers out there) is that when you misrepresent your opponents position and instead create your own imaginary, fictitious simulacrum version to argue with instead (like a straw man, or woman- in this case) some people actually won't notice the difference! They won't notice the slight of hand exchange of your opponents real position for the words you are now putting in their mouth. Or on their bodies, in this case. So you can proceed to go to town on your fake straw-woman-blow-up-doll, win an argument your real opponent was never having with you to begin with, and save face. The only problem is, you still didn't actually address the original argument- you sidestepped it completely. You obfuscated it by making everyone avert their gaze.

In the case of Brainquake, I hold out the possibility of an accidental straw man. A failure to evaluate McCreight's actual assertions due to unknown factors. Misunderstandings can and do occur. I am unable to evaluate the motivations that led to this particular discursive practice on Brainquake's part. But I am left to fume at the eyebrow raising logical failure that ensued- and it's implications. I am also left to fume at the readiness to castigate the intentions, motivations, and choices of other women, other feminists, rather than to actually address their assertions.

Mottahedeh named two lethal cultural contexts as her reason for concern and motivation for protesting McCreight's Boobquake: 1) Orientalism, which she has failed to locate in McCreight's proposal, and 2) The sexualization of women, as evidenced by the ogling of male spectators.

Mottahedeh writes:

"Everyday women and young girls are forced to “show off cleavage” and more in order simply to be heard, to be seen, or to advance professionally. The web is already filled with images of naked women; the porn industry thrives online and many young girls are already vulnerable to predatory abuse. Violence against women and girls has consequences for the sexualisation of women and girls. The extent of their sexualization is evident in the hundereds of replies that pour into the “Boobquake” Facebook page where women write, apologetically: "I don’t have boobs, not fair" or "Hey, I only have a C cup… ” and “what about those of us who no longer have a cleavage? they sag too low.

World-wide, the sexualisation of women and younger girls, as young as pre-schoolers is a genuine problem and as mothers, feminists, and young women ourselves we believe that it is time to move away from this “bare it all” mentality."

I find it profoundly disturbing that Mottahedeh here conflates any expression in dress of female sexuality rejected by the Hojatoleslam, i.e. "immodesty," with sexual victimization. Mottahedeh entirely excises the agency of women's own sexual and bodily expression in dressing themselves from the equation. She evaluates female sexuality from the standpoint of the male spectator or gaze only, as if women were mere paper dolls having their clothes changed by men. When allowed- meaning, when the komite doesn't beat and harass you, when you are not arrested and detained for it, women express their sexuality for their own purposes and pleasure, including in our dress. And in a multiplicity of ways embraced by Boobquake. But Mottahedeh's analysis conflates the exposed fact of female bodies with the facts of male violence. Where is a woman as a sentient actor in this analysis? Pornography and male violence are not the same thing as items of clothing that do not obscure the female form. A woman's narrative point of view matters. It counts. It counts more than the snickers of adolescent trolls leaving asinine comments on Facebook or catcalling when we walk down the street. Female expressiveness, desire, and secondary sex characteristics do not equal male exploitation. Brainquake's rhetoric devalues female sexuality on it's own terms.

But it gets worse. In locating the source of the sexualization/exploitation of women's bodies by the male gaze, the alleged target of her protest- Mottahedeh actually transfers the onus for that exploitative male gaze onto women's bodies. Onto Boobquake. Her language holds women and boobs responsible for the sexist and immature behavior of male spectators. She could have launched a protest on Facebook of the ways social media sites do not equally apply harassment and hate speech policies in cases where the target is a woman being harassed for her body. There is, actually, a feminist discourse about that. But she didn't. She instead protested our use of our own bodies. And our voice. She writes:

"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes..."

No, I'm only joking, that was Sedighi. But I make the joke for a reason- look at the parallels in the logic of his statements and of Brainquake's. Mottahedeh blames women who do not dress modestly for leading young men astray, which (consequently) increases chaos on the internet, not in the earth's tectonic plates. But boobs are still to blame for boy's bad behavior- it's the same discursive strategy. Holding women accountable for male actions. Even actions that she regards as oppressive. Here's what she said:

"This campaign has aroused the evidently insatiable enthusiasm of the web community, male supporters in particular who can’t wait to see “regular” girls and women, many their direct friends to “showing off their tits”."

"Boobs and frivolity on one end, and violent explosive anger on the other. Kendall Thiessen really said it best: "Once you introduce boobs, you KNOW the kind of response you are going to get. Clearly the message was lost."




"...anyone who was on social media in the last week, knows that while the #boobquake hashtag brought attention to the situation in Iran and the post election crisis (and I saw this as an excellent development from where I stood), it also brought with it the hordes of heterosexual men egging women on for a cleavage show on Monday. Add to that, the commodification of breasts, cleavage & women's skin in the global context of the media, and the campaign, sure enough, became a piece ripe for porn magazines. Playboy of course picked it up."




"...mix in boobs and what you have is --wow-- explosive."

Now, why is it a bad idea to blame women for male behavior? Why is it an especially bad idea to blame women's sexuality for male behavior, whether in the form of rousing lust that causes internet trolling or earthquakes? Because doing so is a primary tenet of Rape Culture in North America and in Iran. Think about it- what one important step has been left out of the "boobs cause earthquakes" and "boobs cause internet chaos" paradigms? Men. Sedighi said women's bodies incite men to lust, who are then basically compelled involuntarily to have sex with immodest women, and it is that sex that Sedighi claims causes earthquakes. Mottahedeh's argument is not far enough away from that for comfort. Summarizing the fray, she writes: "Kendall Thiessen really said it best: "Once you introduce boobs, you KNOW the kind of response you are going to get." Really? Do we? Involuntary male sexual aggression and gawking? It's outside of their control, is it? Nonsense.

The merit of a protest strategy initiated by what other marginalized and oppressed group of people would be judged by the standard of the sexist, hegemonic, moronic backlash thrown in their faces by their "oppressors?" What an insane standard women are being held to here. When Mottahedeh complains of the "hordes of heterosexual men egging women on for a cleavage show" that the #Boobquake hashtag "brought with it," one wonders if she would make the same justificatory complaint in other protest contexts. Would Civil Rights marchers in the South be blamed for "bringing with them" the klansmen discursively obfuscating their message? Do Gay Rights protesters "bring with them" Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church? Do women walking alone at night "bring" catcalls and rapists? No.

This is victim blaming.

A reminder of the nature of the chronology involved in social change might be useful at this point:

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
-Mahatma Gandhi

Or this one:



If you are a woman protesting- that laughter will be sexual. It will be demeaning. It will be about your tits. And because women's political and bodily oppresion is still naturalized discursively as existing within the private/personal/intimate half of the public/private dichotomy, it is constructed recursively as "not-political." That is why it lingers- because even other women, with quaking brains, contest the politics of your own bodily integrity.

Jen McCreight, by the way, is not responsible for the behavior of misogynistic adolescent boys with internet accounts. Jen McCreight is not responsible for the misogynistic behavior of grown men who used Boobquake as an opportunity to exploit women. Neither was Boobquake. Neither was every inch of exposed female flesh, or "meat" as Mottahedeh calls it. But in targeting their protest of the male gaze at women's bodies instead of men's eyes, Brainquake does all women a disservice, no matter how we chose to dress.


McCreight never said the history of the oppression of Iranian women was "a funny joke." (Point 3, above.) She never said much of anything about Iranian women, at all. That was never her goal, and isn't her field. She is a scientist- and not a social scientist. She was recognizing a dubious and misogynistic pseudo-scientific claim about the causation of earthquakes floating around the blogosphere and set out to publicly, and comically, test it. That's it. She offered her own boobs in the Name of Science, and extended the invitation to a rather small group of her own friends. She never attempted to patronizingly unveil women in Iran, or scopophilicly equate her definitions of immodesty as liberation:

"I'm asking women to wear their most "immodest" outfit that they already would wear, but to coordinate it all on the same day for the sake of the experiment. Heck, just showing an ankle would be considered immodest by some people. I don't want to force people out of their comfort zones, because I believe women have the right to choose how they want to dress. Please don't pressure women to participate if they don't want to."

But Mottahedeh patronizingly calls McCreight "precious." She even sees fit to point out McCreight's atheism as if it is somehow relevant:

"She's an atheist, a soon-to-be-PhD-student, and a skeptic and she wanted to test out Sedighi's claims regarding the correlation of quakes and women's immodesty. Her curiosity is precious..."

Precious? Now, that is patronizing. Are other scientists assertions "precious?" Oh, how adorable, the atheist soon-to-be-PhD made a little precious experiment in the potty. In the infamous blog post that ignited Boobquake, McCreight outlined a very simple, unprecious premise. She writes:

"This little bit of supernatural thinking has been floating around the blogosphere today:

"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes," Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted as saying by Iranian media. Sedighi is Tehran's acting Friday prayer leader.

I have a modest proposal.

Sedighi claims that not dressing modestly causes earthquakes. If so, we should be able to test this claim scientifically. You all remember the homeopathy overdose?

Time for a Boobquake."

Anyone who has experienced the patriarchal terrorism of chastity policing and gender apartheid knows that although smart women are not welcome in a man's world, it is not your vocabulary or IQ scores slipping out from under your hijab that can result in your beating and arrest. Sedighi did not say women's smarts- our grasp of ancient literature and the sciences, causes earthquakes. What McCreight has done- and what Brainquake has failed to do, is demonstrate those smarts in action. Perhaps a more relevant use of Brainquake's "upload your resume" tactic in relationship to Sedighi's words would have been to ask women to name and list their experiences under chastity policing and gender apartheid. Encounters of street harassment and brushes with the komite.

I am struck by the parallels in this debate with the processes of linguistic standardization, which legitimate certain forms of speech and mark as authoritative certain speakers while disenfranchising others. It brings to mind Bourdieu's reminder that we learn to falsely misrecognize "authoritative" speakers and "legitimated" speech as innately superior, when, in fact what we are recognizing is the hidden history of power relations behind that authority. The vergonha inflicted on speakers of dialects that do not have broad social Power backing them is symbolic violence. This is occurring in this debate. Women's bodies and physical appearances are a non-legitimated form of speech when women choose to use them to communicate. And Brainquake seems to have been about attacking that legitimacy and our authority as speakers.

So, who do we have a right to hear from? What do we have a right to say? The historical discourse surrounding a poet who communicated with both her body and her mind is shockingly similar to what has arisen over the last several days. Táhirih Qurratu'l-`Ayn's unveiling at Badasht has for many years borne the brunt of discourses that connect unveiling to Western imperialism, harlotry, and heresy, and fueled anti-Bábí and anti-Bahá'í violence. She was a Qur'anic scholar from Qazvin born into a family of theologians. In one of her poems, we hear her speak:

Táhirih wrote:

"Just let the wind untie my perfumed hair,
my net would capture every wild gazelle.

Just let me paint my flashing eyes with black, and I would turn the day as dark as hell.

Yearning, each dawn, to see my dazzling face,
the heaven lifts its golden looking glass.

If I should pass a church by chance today,
Christ's own virgins would rush to my gospel."

How immodest. What would Sedighi say? What would Mottahedeh and Bashi say? Does this image, penned by a woman flaunting the power of her own sexuality, ignore the "historical, social, political and cultural contexts" of Iranian women's struggles?

Our sexuality has a right to correct the opacity of the discourse.

Until then: 36-D, out...Peace in the Middle East.

"Gozár-e man be kelisá agar fetad roozi Be deen-e khish baram dokhtarán-e tarsá rá"